"The only one we can rule out is BENEFICIENT'

he was better value than burn and turn who had similar form. He was sent off fav in a maiden won by a decent sort lto and hammered a fair meade runner prior to that. a case could have been made

its sire only ever won on good,benefical only ever run on soft/heavy.

in its 1 win the next 3 behind him all won next time out.


its there if you look ,but you need hours of eliminating and searching all possible angles.

therwes more connections than crowd,surely if all those backed it ,how did it start 100/1.

cuth u are a supreme aftertiming tool

hth

its sire only ever won on good,benefical only ever run on soft/heavy


utterly irrelevant

makes you wonder what price it would have been if it had bolted up in the thurles race instead of being pulled up.......just a thought.

Comingupthehill ffs
is this guy for real?

Tony makes Ferdy look like a saint,hth

Might be value at the Festival with people underestimating this performance. no fluke imo...broke Captain Conan, turned away Cash and Go and left Il Fenomeno for dead in the straight.

1)i didnt back it - so not aftertiming,just explaining to others and looking for myself what i missed.

2)sire good - only ran on soft heavy - irrelavant.clearly your lost ,this is horse racing forum,casino games is further down the side bar.

given your logic ,might start breeding 2 sprinters ,i ve always fancied a grand national winner,a/w sprinters just make sure.
where were you in 1939 - you could of explained your theory to hilters airen race and stopped the war.

was on this lto @about 2/1.Ruby pulled it up.
50/1 today,I've got to laugh.
Fcking gutted really!

cuth

you are almost certainly a troll

you can backfit any horse racing result AFTER the race to something or another

watchit - cant post pre race,as due to the big far eastern syndicates who closely follow my selections - its just fooks the markets up,they ve still not recovered from comply or die.

watchit he sounds like a shroodie alright,
comingupthehill,are you trying to tell us Beneficials only win on good ground??

^^^^^

i actually believe that you believe that tbh

penny a day  - was supreme leaders most successful off spring,good ground horse - bred with benifcals (good ground horse)equals 50/1,other beneficals bred with soft ground horses may win on soft

virtual - given that 70% of the posts on here is people slagging off the last races jockey/trainer/form lines/post/clerks/stewards any and all, i thought i d take the opposing view,

we ve thought for years to make this country free speech and a free press,so i m not going to be silenced by the doomsday mob on here ,shouting down anyone who likes racing,plus its harder to explain whats happened rather than just slag it off - so unlike you i dont take the easy route of just condeming,i look for the positive,

Its fine taking an opposing view cuth if in fact your view has substance?, but when you take an opposing view just for the sake of it you lose the moral high ground!.

everything i have posted a view on ,i ve backed it up with proof/explanation,i dont do it to be opposing - i take the only see good view,not interested in negative vibes.

Once you can see through the pocket talk a lot what people complain about often has bases in truth, so if you take the only see good view cuth you're actually doing yourself a disservice, the equivalent to been fitted with blinkers.

cuth

all you do is "pretend" to be a thorough form book studier when in fact i very much doubt if you even bet

as ever you have resorted to talking gibberish to yourself

"so unlike you i dont take the easy route of just condeming,i look for the positive,"

i very rarely condemn on here infact i have posted one bet today a winner at 14-1 pre race

Coming Up The Hill didn't say he backed it so it's not aftertiming.

And to be fair, he's right. The form stacks up, he'd won both completed races over hurdles and subsequent winners had come out.

He went off 2/1 fav last time and although it was a weaker race he shouldn't have been 50/1 today.

I backed Cash and Go cause I backed it last time when it won and thought he'd have the measure again.

VIRTUAL fan SEETHING

your right virtual - you dont condem ,you target the poster not the race.but its same difference,your so hell bent on attack mode,you loose the arguement.

silver - even if you think their is some base to the moaners on here  where are you going with it,chidren are starving in africia - have been doing so since bob geldof and then the g20 were meant to have sorted it,there moan is basically slagging off the racing product,so they are in effect arguing to close it down,as africa is africa - then racing is the way it is - pretty good ,why moan on here about it,which long term will drive people away from betfair at first then racing later,

you cant enjoy whatever you do enjoy about racing - then call it the next,

2)sire good - only ran on soft heavy - irrelavant.clearly your lost ,this is horse racing forum,casino games is further down the side bar


Beneficial's best effort acc. to Racing Post ratings was a close third to Hernando on VERY SOFT....he has been a sire for donkey years and has sired hudreds of winners on a soft surface (whilst his offspring not really showing a preference for any surface, like most sires, in fact). carry on guessing

you ve just got to go back and explain every single piece of form as no fooker knows how to read it.

right ,the horse is a heard animal,they naturally try and run  with the other horses,so a cling on to the hirt tails 3rd to henando isnt its best piece of form.

1)french ratings
2)grounds always soft in france
3)as mark cavendish will tell you,slip streaming herando is easy - all its wins were on good.


its pointless trying to find holes - my first post was correct.

right ,the horse is a heard animal,they naturally try and run  with the other horses,so a cling on to the hirt tails 3rd to henando isnt its best piece of form.

i shall read the formbook entirely differently from now on....horses are herd animals so ignore all form except winning form. thanks for enlightening.

you ve selected 1 3rd on soft as your example,totally ignoring the 6 good wins.

i've not totally ignored anything....i've looked at Beneficial's record as a whole and concluded that it is ludicrous to be basing any judgement on his progeny based on your theory that he was a Good-ground horse. That is all.

good on you,make your assesment and stand by it,

the fact your wrong just makes it possible for others to win.

almost impossible to make a case for him before the race and the fact that he  made the running and the time was 3 secs slower than the first means it will be dificult for him to show the same form at cheltenham

keep laying those Beneficial's on soft, mate....i'll be keeping an eye on them

he might alter tactics ,for future runs,trainers will be trying all options.

my private - you keep watching,i ll be proved right

how can you be proved right when hundreds of Beneficial's offspring have already won on soft/heavy, proving you wrong?!

i cannot believe what im reading here,Beneficials are useless on soft/heavy ground
is this guy on drugs?

go on i ll play along.

as i stated previously,it dependas on the mare,what ground she liked,but i ve looked at enough  stallions race records ,alot of the time you cant be sure what going they preferred,but benifical was a 100% good ground horse.

snaff -- could be right,named himself after a drug induced film,but at least he offered some facts to back up niaevity,you usually get ,what a load of rubbish.

Just seen this thread - made me chuckle.

The horse wasn't value at 50/1 and anybody who makes a claim that it was based on anything it had shown prior to the race is inept.

Beyond the slow early pace that obviously helped the running's of Redera & Sadlers Storm on the card give you the real reason for the performance and if anybody can't put the inferred two and two together, given the legend of the trainer involved here, well all the best trying to make a profit from the game.

no one mentioned value before race,i just looked up its form after race to see if it had anything of interest.

Anyone who says Benefficient had no chance is misguided. His official rating before the race was 136. Sous le Cieux rated 145 based on a win where he lay 2nd and led entering the straight. This race he was held up in the rear therefore negating any advantage he had. Of the others, through Lord Windemere and Dylan Ross, they were overated and should have been in the low 130's, but even so still only had 6 or 8lb in hand assuming the Benefficient rating was correct.
I know. I laid this thing instead of the 118 rated Burn and Turn and against my better judgement.Purely because of Jessica Harrington's comments in the RP and the betting led me. A bad error.

CUTH - I like your approach in that you're looking back on a freakish looking result to try and find a plausible explanation for the result.  Good punters do this in my view, instead of ranting at a race in which they lost and moving onto the next one.

It's commendable for you to do so but I honestly believe you're barking up the wrong tree with the Beneficial angle - it just doesn't make sense fella, your assumption isn't borne out by the progeny results of that sire which are proven for a decade.

The bigger lesson to take out of the result is when you have trainers like Tony Martin who's horses can show seemingly quite unreal form compared to previous efforts (someone made, quite rightly, a Ferdy Murphy comparison, earlier on in the thread) then it's best to treat any runner from his stable with caution & give them extra respect than that of their bare form.

Brigust seem's to think he rated the race wrong beforehand and that Benefficient had a chance, he could be right, depends on his interpretation of form but in my book he wasn't a 50/1 shot, i.e if that race was run 50 times I wouldn't expect him to win even once - that's based on pure form again which subjective and just my take on his form going into the race in respect of the form of his rivals.

However a smarter punter than myself yesterday (and I think I'm pretty clued up by and large) wouldn't have dismissed it so easily as I did pre race purely because of the trainer, I simply had forgotten about that one crucial angle, which in his case is far more important than bare form.  On that basis maybe 50/1 was overpriced.

Anyway shan't prattle on - as said, despite the knockers on this thread (me being one initially!) your last post is good, it's good to try and work out why things happened that you didn't expect but I think you have come up with the wrong angle.

Either brigust has the correct one or mine has more credence - there isn't another explanation here.

Best of luck anyway.

whatever way you look at it, it's safe to say that even connections didn't fancy it yesterday.

when you see the number of people in the winners enclosure afterwards, then you know that they didn't back it either, otherwise it would never have started as big as 50/1.

Well done to Kevin Blake of the Racing Post who put this one up
as his selection in the pre race forum at Leopardstown.I owe that man a drink.Kevin said the horse couldn't handle the ground
the day it ran at Thurles,it was like glue.Note,another horse that ran that day and was pulled up because he couldn't cope with the ground was Salsify and he won the Hunters chase yesterday.By the way the owner of Benefficient did back the horse as he said so in the post race interview.

By the way the owner of Benefficient did back the horse as he said so in the post race interview.

What about the other 30 people he had with him?

snaff -- could be right,named himself after a drug induced film,but at least he offered some facts to back up niaevity,you usually get ,what a load of rubbish.

i think you'll find my forum name is a Terminology used in the racing fraternity,
Hope this helps,YDC

i think he was referring to me, OTS (the film reference being My Own Private Idaho, which of course i'm not named after at all!). he's a funny fellow alright

Funny rory connections never mentioned the ground as an excuse for its Thurles flop, when interviwed post race on Sunday, owner said horse wasn't right and had an infection, no mention of this infection after the Thurles race or before the Leopardstown race?.

Lets just put 2 and 2 together, the name beside the horses name AJ Martin is the only explanation anyone requires for the horses deplorable but deliberate run at Thurles.

apologies duncan,if that is the case,he didnt make himself very clear,although having read his comments on this thread,it appears to be a regular occurrence

OTS, in his 23.29 post, he 'cleverly' spun it so that it seemed that you were agreeing with him that Beneficials are useless on soft grd and that your 'is this guy on drugs?' was aimed at me for disagreeing with that not him...or something like that . Glad that's clear!

duncan idaho get a life mate seriously

what's the problem, pal?....OTS got confused, i have replied to his posts to clarify. cheers.